Bombay High Court
Innocent Amamchukwu Umesegha @ ... vs State, As Rep. By The Officer In Charge ... on 9 February, 2026
CRIA-11-2023.DOC
Suchitra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.11/2023
INNOCENT AMAMCHUKWU
UMESEGHA @ AMAMCHUKWU
OKEKE, s/o Okeke, aged about
40 years, Nigerian National,
Presently lodged in Colvale
Modern Jail, Colvale, Bardez-Goa. ... APPELLANT
Versus
1. STATE
(As represented by the Officer
In charge, Anti Narcotic Cell,
Panaji, Goa.
2. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
High Court Building,
Panaji, Goa. ... RESPONDENTS
Ms Caroline Collasso and Mr Sahil Lavande, Advocates for the
Appellant.
Mr P. Faldessai, APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.
Reserved on : 4th FEBRUARY 2026
Pronounced on: 9th FEBRUARY 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. By way of the present Appeal, the Appellant has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 29.01.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji in Special Criminal Case (NDPS) No.43/2015 convicting him for ofence punishable Page 1 of 18 9th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 09/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2026 20:41:58 ::: CRIA-11-2023.DOC under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years and pay ine of Rs.1,00,000/-. In default of payment of ine, the Appellant is sentenced to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year.
2. he Appeal was admitted by this Court vide its order dated 13.07.2021. he Appeal was taken up for inal hearing by consent of the Advocate for the Appellant and the learned APP for the Respondent.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 13.04.2015 at around 19.15 hrs. PSI herron D'Costa (Complainant) and his staf went to Anjuna, Bardez, Goa to gather intelligence. At 23.30 hrs., he received a reliable information through his source stating that one foreign national, male, having African features, aged about 30-35 years, strong built, tall height and wearing grey colour track pant will be coming to deliver narcotic drugs on 14.04.2015 between 01.30 hrs. to 02.00 hrs. to his prospective customer in front of Esha Villas, Vaddy, Siolim, Bardez-Goa. He reduced the information into writing and sent a copy thereof with Constable Sushant Pagui to the Dy. S.P., ANC (Anti-Narcotic Cell) for his information. hereafter, the Complainant directed Amol Naik, another Constable of ANC Police Station to secure two pancha witnesses for conducting narcotic raid. At St. Michael Church, Anjuna Bardez, Goa the Complainant introduced both panchas to the members of the raiding party.
Page 2 of 189th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 09/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2026 20:41:58 ::: CRIA-11-2023.DOC
4. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that after completing the mandatory formalities, the Complainant along with the members of the raiding party and the panchas proceeded to Esha Villas, Vaddy, Siolim, Bardez at about 01.00 hrs. At about 01.55 hrs., a male person matching the description reached the spot. he Complainant along with the members of the raiding party and the panchas surrounded him and apprehended him. A whitish colour plastic bottle was found in the pant pocket of the Appellant. he bottle contained brownish colour liquid. he cap of the bottle was having a dropper. he Complainant suspected the liquid to be LSD. he sample of the liquid tested positive through the drug detection kit for LSD - a psychotropic substance. he weight of the LSD liquid was found to be of commercial quantity as provided under the Schedule of the NDPS Act.
5. he contraband was attached under panchanama from the person of the Appellant and he was taken into custody. FIR No.9/2015 was registered at the Anti Narcotic Cell, Panaji, Goa. he narcotic substance was sent for analysis. On receipt of the report of the chemical analyst, charge-sheet was iled against the Appellant.
6. he Charge against the Appellant is that on 14.04.2015 between 2.00 hrs to 5.30 hrs, in front of Esha Villas, Siolim, Bardez-Goa, the Accused was caught red handed and found in illegal possession of 2.2792 grams of LSD liquid which is a narcotic drug having approximate value of `2,70,000/- in the Page 3 of 18 9th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 09/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2026 20:41:58 ::: CRIA-11-2023.DOC international market, for which the Accused failed to account for and thereby committed ofence punishable under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act. he Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
7. he prosecution examined seven witnesses to prove their case. PW1 - Satish Nailkar, Junior Scientiic Oicer, CFSL, Hyderabad who opined that the substance received tested positive for LSD. PW2 - Anant Virnodkar, Dy. S.P., ANC who deposed about the receipt of the intimation along with the prior information and receipt of the handing over of the seal of ANC Panaji which was used in the raid. PW3 - Sushant Pagui, Police Constable ANC who accompanied PSI herron D'Costa to Anjuna for gathering intelligence. He was also the carrier of the information letter addressed to the Dy. S.P. PW4 - Lee Braganza, one of the panchas attesting the Search and Seizure Panchanama. PW5 - Dinesh Gadekar, PSI ANC Panaji who also was a member of the raiding party and was present during the packing and sealing procedure. He deposes about transporting the seal from the spot of the raid to the Dy. S.P. ANC for the purpose of safe custody. PW6 - Suraj Halarnkar, PI ANC who deposes to the receipt of seized property and keeping the same in safe custody. PW7 - herron D'Costa, PSI ANC and the investigating oicer of the case. He deposes about the details of the raid conducted by him, the packing and sealing of the contraband. He further deposes that he iled the complaint at the police station.
8. he stand taken by the Appellant in his statement under Page 4 of 18 9th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 09/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2026 20:41:58 ::: CRIA-11-2023.DOC Section 313 Cr. P.C. was denial and false implication by the police. No defence evidence was led by the Appellant.
9. Heard Ms Caroline Collasso for the Appellant and Mr P. Faldessai, learned APP for the State. Perused the record and proceedings.
10. Ms Collasso, learned Advocate for the Appellant assailed the judgment and order of conviction on various grounds. It was her contention that the forwarding note bears the Crime Number 09/2015 in the body of the note. According to her, as per the Complaint, Crime Number was registered at 11.00 hrs. on 14.04.2015, whereas the forwarding note was prepared thereafter. hus, the mention of the FIR number in the forwarding note creates a serious doubt as to whether the FIR is antedated or otherwise. She also submitted that the forwarding note is not deposited along with the muddemal property and hence it creates serious doubt whether it was in fact prepared at the spot. It was further urged by Ms Collasso that no explanation was given as to where the forwarding note was after the raid. his assumes signiicance since the muddemal register clearly indicates that only muddemal property was deposited and not the forwarding note. She further urged that there was no seal movement register maintained by the police to show the subsequent movement of the seal of ANC Panaji which was used in the raid which creates doubt about whether the seal, the contraband and the sealing material were in the possession of the investigating agency at the same time.
Page 5 of 189th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 09/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2026 20:41:58 ::: CRIA-11-2023.DOC
11. Ms Collasso further contended that the presence of the pancha Lee Braganza - PW4 at the spot of the raid in the late hours of the night was doubtful since he stays at another locality. Further, the house of the said pancha was raided earlier by the same police department (ANC) and hence he was obviously a pliable witness. It was also argued that although a copy of the Seizure Memo was given to the Accused, a copy of the Panchanama was not given creating doubt on the recording of the Panchanama at the spot. Ms Collasso also sought to contend that there are several discrepancies in the CFSL report and relied on the parameters set out by a Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Nicklaus Peter Heel v/s. State of Goa - 1997 SCC OnLine Bom 158. Lastly she submitted that the certiicate given under Section 65B of Evidence Act with regard to the worksheets given along with the CFSL Report is not within the parameters set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anwar P.V. v/s. P.K. Bashir - (2014) 10 SCC 473.
12. Per contra, Mr Phaldessai, learned APP for the State submitted that insofar as the argument relating to the reference of the Crime Number on the forwarding note, it is not correct to say that the FIR was lodged later and the forwarding note was antedated to relect the number of the FIR. He submitted that the normal practise in preparing the forwarding note is that the forwarding note is prepared on the spot of the raid to be sent to the Director, CFSL. It is written by the IO, and the seal impression of the ANC Panaji is aixed on the forwarding note. At the time the forwarding note is prepared, there is no FIR Page 6 of 18 9th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 09/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2026 20:41:58 ::: CRIA-11-2023.DOC number since the FIR Number is given after the raiding party returns to the police station. Hence, the relevant column of FIR Number in the forwarding note is left blank and subsequently illed in with a diferent ink along with other details and then dispatched to the CFSL Hyderabad. He submitted that this is normally done for administrative convenience and to ensure that the forwarding note is dispatched at the earliest to the CFSL. Dealing with the argument of the seal movement register, Mr Faldessai pointed out from the complaint dated 14.04.2015 that after completion of sealing formalities, the seal was sent with PSI Dinesh Gadekar - PW5 along with the covering letter addressed to Dy. S.P. ANC immediately after the raid. It was received by Dy. S.P. Mr Virnodkar - PW2. his fact is corroborated both by PW2 Mr Virnodkar and PW5 Dinesh Gadekar in their depositions. He submitted that the chain of custody of the seal is maintained and hence the argument advanced by the Appellant is not tenable. Moreover, from the evidence of Dy. S. P. Mr Virnodkar - PW2, it is clearly revealed that he has produced the seal movement register showing the entries demonstrating the movement of the seal. he same was proved and exhibited. Learned APP emphasized that the purpose of sending the forwarding note along with the contraband to CFSL and simultaneously sending the seal to the superior oicer i.e. Dy. S.P. is to ensure that the seal and the sealed material is not at the same place at the same time so as to avoid any allegations of tampering. his is why the forwarding note is not sent with the muddemal property and is directly sent to the CFSL.
Page 7 of 189th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 09/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2026 20:41:58 ::: CRIA-11-2023.DOC
13. Mr Faldessai, responding to the argument regarding the pliability of pancha Lee Braganza - PW4 submitted that the fact that he was at Anjuna at 12.30 a.m. cannot be taken against him. It is not untoward for persons to be near Anjuna, one of the famous beaches in Goa at late hours and no mileage can be derived by the Appellant from his presence at the said time. He also submitted that the pancha was subject to detailed cross- examination and his credibility was not shaken.
14. Addressing the argument on behalf of the Appellant that the Appellant was not given a copy of the panchanama, learned APP submitted that the seizure memo - Exh.43 and the Panchanama - Exh.42, both were handed over to the Appellant however he refused to sign on both the documents. he search panchanamas and the seizure panchanamas both bear the endorsement "refused to sign", indicating that although these documents were handed over to the Appellant, he refused to sign in acknowledgement of the same.
15. Dealing with the argument on behalf of the Appellant that the CFSL report has several discrepancies and it does not it the parameters of the judgment in Nicklaus Peter Heel (supra), learned APP submitted that the Scientiic Oicer who carried out the examination of the substance was examined as PW1. He proved his report, the forwarding letters, certiicate of authority, etc. He has stated categorically that the substance tested positive for the presence of LSD. He was subjected to extensive cross- examination. During his evidence, he deposed about the tests Page 8 of 18 9th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 09/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2026 20:41:58 ::: CRIA-11-2023.DOC that he carried out on the sample, he denied the suggestion that UV Spectrophotometry Test is not a recognized or conirmatory test for detecting LSD. He has described how the various tests were conducted and what were the observations therein. He has also produced some worksheets in support of the tests that he has conducted along with a Certiicate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. It is pertinent to note that the Section 65B certiicate is in respect of the worksheets only and not the examination report or other documents which have been proved and exhibited through this witness. Learned APP emphasized that even assuming that the Section 65B certiicate does not fulil the requirements and parameters set out in the judgment of Anwar P. V. v/s. P. K. Bashir (supra), the certiicate was not given for the examination report and forwarding letters but it was for proving the worksheets which were subsequently produced by the witness. he worksheets only relected the notings made by the said witness while carrying out the various tests. here was exhaustive cross-examination by the Appellant on these worksheets. Hence, even otherwise nothing turns on the Section 65B certiicate given in support of these worksheets. He would submit that even if these worksheets are discarded from the purview of admissible evidence, the fact still remains that the examination report indicating the presence of LSD and the chain of custody indicated by the forwarding letters remain unchallenged.
16. he charge framed against the Accused is that on 14.04.2015 between 2.00 hrs to 5.30 hrs, in front of Esha Villas, Page 9 of 18 9th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 09/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2026 20:41:58 ::: CRIA-11-2023.DOC Siolim, Bardez-Goa, the Accused was caught red handed and found in illegal possession of 2.2792 grams of LSD liquid which is a narcotic drug having approximate value of `2,70,000/- in the international market, for which the Accused failed to account for and thereby committed ofence punishable under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act. he impugned judgment and order sets out the unfolding of the prosecution case through the seven witnesses who were examined in its support. he impugned judgment and order exhaustively sets out the reasons for the conviction of the Appellant. It deals with the case of the prosecution right from the receipt of the information, securing of the pancha witnesses, constitution of the raiding party, proceeding for raid, laying of trap to apprehend the suspect, search of the Accused and seizure of the contraband, preparation of search panchanamas and seizure report, preparation of forwarding note and sending of muddemal property and the seal, examination of the substance and conirmation. It also deals with the compliance of the technical aspects such as whether the search was carried out in accordance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, whether Section 57 of the NDPS Act was complied with, whether there was authorisation for conducting the raid and whether Section 42 of the NDPS Act was complied with. It records the subjective satisfaction of the learned trial Court on all the aforesaid aspects. he impugned judgment also deals with the contentions of the Appellant which are more or less echoed in the present Appeal also. After taking a conspectus of the evidence led, the documents brought on record and the submissions of the State and the Appellant, the impugned judgment holds that the charge against the Accused punishable Page 10 of 18 9th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 09/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2026 20:41:58 ::: CRIA-11-2023.DOC under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act is proved and proceeds to convict the Appellant. While addressing the issue of sentencing, the learned Sessions Judge passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction, notes that the ofence under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act is punishable with imprisonment for not less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and also liable to ine which shall not be less than `1,00,000/- but which may extend to `2,00,000/-. In the circumstances of the case, the learned Sessions Judge proceeds to impose the minimum imprisonment i.e. for a period of ten years and minimum ine i.e. ine of `1,00,000/- which if paid shall be forfeited to the Government and in default of non-payment, the Appellant shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year.
17. Dealing with the various contentions raised on behalf of the Appellant, I ind that they are not suicient to dislodge the inding of conviction against the Appellant. On behalf of the Appellant it was argued that mention of the FIR number in the forwarding note creates an apprehension that the FIR is antedated. It was also argued that the forwarding note is not deposited with the muddemal property and hence it creates doubt whether it was in fact prepared at the spot. It was also urged that there was no seal movement register maintained by the police to show the movement of the seal. I ind force in the submissions of the learned APP for the State that the normal practise in preparing the forwarding note is that the forwarding note is prepared at the spot of the raid to be sent to the Director, CFSL. At the time the forwarding note is prepared, there is no FIR Page 11 of 18 9th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 09/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2026 20:41:58 ::: CRIA-11-2023.DOC Number since the FIR Number is given after the raiding party returns to the police station. Hence, the column of the FIR Number in the forwarding note is left blank and when the FIR Number is allotted, it is subsequently illed in with a diferent ink to indicate that it was illed in after the allotment of the FIR Number. his is done for administrative convenience and to ensure that the forwarding note is dispatched at the earliest to the CFSL. Moreover, the Appellant has not cross-examined the IO who has proved the forwarding note, speciically on the point of the column of the FIR Number in the forwarding note, neither it is the case of the Appellant before the Trial Court that the FIR is antedated. hus I ind that the argument of antedating of the FIR is taken up in the Appeal for the irst time by the Appellant. In any case, there is no inirmity in either the complaint or the forwarding note and hence the argument of antedating the FIR must be rejected. Insofar as the seal movement register is concerned, the evidence of the Dy. S. P. Mr Virnodkar - PW2 clearly shows that he has produced the seal movement register and the same is proved and exhibited. he evidence of PW5 Dinesh Gadekar and PW2 Dy. S. P. Mr Virnodkar demonstrates the sanctity of the chain of custody of the seal and hence, even this argument of the Appellant deserves to be rejected.
18. On behalf of the Appellant it was strenuously contended that the presence of the pancha Lee Braganza - PW4 at the spot of the raid was doubtful. his argument deserves to be rejected summarily since it is not untoward of persons to be near Anjuna, Goa at late hours in the night, being one of the well-known Page 12 of 18 9th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 09/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2026 20:41:58 ::: CRIA-11-2023.DOC beaches in Goa and no mileage can be derived by the Appellant from his presence at the said time. Moreover, the pancha was subjected to detailed cross-examination and his credibility is not shaken. On behalf of the Appellant it was also argued vehemently that the Appellant was not given a copy of the panchanama which creates a doubt about the preparation of the panchanama itself. he record indicates that the seizure memo Exh.43 and panchanama Exh.42 both were handed over to the Appellant, however he refused to sign in acknowledgement of the same. hus even this argument of the Appellant does not merit any consideration.
19. he CFSL report was sought to be assailed by the Appellant on the ground that it has several discrepancies and that it does not it the parameters of the judgment of a Division bench of this Court in Nicklaus Peter Heel (supra). Examining this argument, I ind that the Scientiic Oicer who has carried out the test of the substance was cross-examined at length by the Appellant. He has proved his report, the forwarding letters, certiicate of authority, etc. He has given a categorical opinion that the substance tested positive for the presence of LSD. He has also deposed about the various tests that he carried out on the sample and the observations recorded therein.
20. he Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nicklaus Peter Heel (supra), while dealing with the evidence of chemical analyser in NDPS Case has observed as under:-
Page 13 of 189th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 09/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2026 20:41:58 ::: CRIA-11-2023.DOC "12. Going by these Certiicates and the deposition it can be seen that the opinion of the expert made in this case cannot be safely relied upon to come to the conclusion that the articles recovered from the person of the accused were charas and L.S.D he aforesaid authorities are seen to have uniformly held that an expert opinion is only an opinion.
What amount of credibility or reliability could be attached to this opinion is a matter for the Court depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. he Court has to scan through the evidence of Analyst, with reference to certiicate issued by him, and ind out whether his evidence inspires conidence to solely rely upon the opinion expressed by the expert. As we pointed out earlier what kind of test he has conducted with the contraband articles has not been mentioned and what are the chemical datas he had observed in the materials was also not mentioned. His evidence also lacks the details at what time and how much time he took for analysing the articles. If these essential materials are not supplied either in the certiicate of the analysis or in the evidence of the Chemical Analyser, the mere opinion expressed by the expert cannot be relied upon. he other important thing is that P.W 1 for identifying the substance of charas solely relied upon the biological test conducted by Dr. P.K Banerjee, Assistant Director Biology. Dr. P.K Banerjee in his certiicate P.W
1.C has stated that: "it might be opined that each black material was exudation of ganja plant" and P.W 1 stated, as extracted earlier, that he came to the conclusion that the Page 14 of 18 9th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 09/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2026 20:41:58 ::: CRIA-11-2023.DOC substance sent for analysis contained charas and L.S.D Accepting such a cryptic evidence and coming to the conclusion that the substance recovered from the person of the accused is objectionable articles really amount to miscarriage of justice. he Court below has blindly relied upon the opinion of the expert which, neither in the report nor in his evidence, contained necessary details or data on which a Court can safely come to the conclusion whether the prosecution has recovered from the person of the accused objectionable substance, namely, charas and L.S.D herefore, we have no hesitation to support the contention of the counsel for the appellant that it is very dangerous to act upon such evidence of the expert to ind the accused guilty. We may note here that under the N.D.P.S Act the recovery and the chemical analysis are very important stages in the investigation of the ofence. In other words, both, are the beginning and the end of the investigation If any laxity is exhibited in these important stages of recovery and analysis, the real culprit will escape. he Court must also be alive to the situations where innocent persons are likely to be implicated and subjected to rigorous punishment prescribed by the Act. Either way it will do havoc to the society. herefore it is in this context that the Supreme Court has held in State Of Punjab v. Balbir Singh., reported in (1994) 3 SCC 299: AIR 1994 SC 1872 that the procedure to be followed at the time of recovery and search should positively be followed and any fault in adopting such procedure such as sections 50, 42 and 43 will Page 15 of 18 9th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 09/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2026 20:41:58 ::: CRIA-11-2023.DOC deinitely fatally afect the prosecution. Apart from this, taking into account the legislative intent the evidence of the Chemical Analyst in the cases coming under the N.D.P.S Act has to be very strictly and carefully analysed and decided.
13. Neither the report nor the evidence of P.W 1 therefore can be said to have inspired conidence in the mind of the Court so that the Court can solely rely upon his testimony for coming to a decision that the contraband articles were charas and also L.S.D."
21. he Division Bench in the aforesaid case observed that the amount of credibility or reliability that can be attached to the opinion of the expert is a matter for the Court depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the facts of the present case, not only does the examination report categorically state that the substance tested positive for the presence of LSD, there is also no inirmity insofar as the report, forwarding letters, certiicate of authority and other procedural aspects are concerned. he expert has also deposed about the various tests that he has carried out on the sample, the manner in which they were conducted and the observations therein. hus in my considered view, the examination report, the forwarding documents along with the deposition of the PW1 Satish Nailkar
- Scientiic Oicer are in consonance with the parameters of the judgment of Nicklaus Peter Heel (supra). Lastly, on behalf of the Appellant it was contended that the worksheets produced by the Page 16 of 18 9th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 09/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2026 20:41:58 ::: CRIA-11-2023.DOC PW1 - Scientiic Oicer in support of his deposition regarding the tests that he conducted to arrive at his opinion were accompanied by a certiicate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, however, the certiicate does not fulil the parameters of Anwar P. V. v/s. P. K. Bashir (supra). It is pertinent to note, that the Section 65B certiicate was given in respect of the worksheets only and not the examination report or other forwarding documents which were proved and exhibited through this witness. he worksheets were in the respect of the tests which were carried out by the witness. here was exhaustive cross- examination of the witness on the aspect of the various tests that were conducted by him. he testimony of the expert witness remains unshaken. In that light, even assuming that the Section 65B certiicate does not come within the parameters of Anwar P.V. v/s. P.K. Bashir (supra) it would afect only the worksheets and not the examination report or the other documents proved and exhibited by the witness. Even discarding the admissibility of the worksheets, the testimony of the expert witness otherwise remains unshaken. he examination report indicating the presence of LSD and the chain of custody indicated by the forwarding letters remain unchallenged. Hence, in my view, the argument about the parameters of the Section 65B certiicate does not dent the case of the prosecution in any manner.
22. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I ind that the Appellant has not made out a case for interference in the impugned Judgment and Order. he impugned Judgment and Order does not sufer from any inirmity. Hence the Appeal fails Page 17 of 18 9th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 09/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2026 20:41:58 ::: CRIA-11-2023.DOC and the conviction must be sustained. I proceed to pass the following order:
(i) Criminal Appeal No.11/2023 is dismissed. he Judgment and Order dated 29.01.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji in Special Criminal Case (NDPS) No.43/2015 is conirmed.
23. Criminal Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.
Page 18 of 189th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 09/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2026 20:41:58 :::